While I agree these are good for general fitness and will help in climbing, they definitely don't help you get strong from a climbing point of view.

Does this include the bit where I said 'using hard pumpy walls and drill climbing'?

In reply to:

Really important, not sure, I know people who can't walk 100 steps up the hill to the crag without stop and breathing heavy who climb pretty darn hard.

Well I can but then I have lived in the mountains a long time. I think overall fitness is very important. I know a lot of alpine guides and the first thing they would advise when it comes to climbing, keep up a good all round fitness. I used to smoke and I used to climb and I made every excuse known to man about the unimportance of lung fitness versus climbing! When I stopped smoking my climbing improved a lot and walking up steep hills to a climb was not a problem.

In reply to:

While slack-lining is fun, I never found it useful in increasing my climbing ability. Just seems to be one of the activities that climbers enjoy doing. How does slack lining help specifically.

Two ways. Firstly its good for understanding your center of balance. Sitting to standing position or standing to kneeling position is good for this and secondly, slack lining with two lines over a reasonably high drop into water exposes you to that adrenalin rush that most indoor climbers unfortunately don't get.

In reply to:

Want to build finger strength before your area has a climbing gym, do what climbers did for years before gyms were around. Finger tip pull-ups. Add weight to get even stronger.

Of course our fingers/forearms need to be strong because when we launch for that overhanging grab we need to be able to lock round it like a vice but we can't rely on our fingers to keep us there for more than a few moments. Spend too long hesitating our next move (which will momentarily rest our fingers) and our hand will have no option but to let go.

In reply to:

The Power versus Endurance debate in rock climbing has been around for long time. With more of either, you are less liking to get pumped, or to recover quicker between pumps. (Shaking out has been in use for a long time too.)

I wasn't talking about shaking out though! I was talking about brute strength not holding you onto the rock for long. Put yourself in a situation where you can't let go and shake your arm. Lets say you have a two finger hold and a two finger pinch. you are not going to rely on the pinch on an overhang whilst you shake the other arm out. If you are unable to work out your next move quickly you are going to deck.

In reply to:

I agree, many climbers rely to much on upper body, I learned to climbed on slabs and cracks, so I understand the importance of foot work. With that in mind, regardless of how strong your legs are, if you upper body and arms can't hold you, you won't climb overhanging routes.

When I started climbing overhanging routes, cracks and face, I had to learn to be less aggressive with my lower body and more aggressive with my upper. I spent forever trying to get perfect foot placement instead of just moving into the next stance. By doing so, I wasted energy. Once I learn to move, cut my feet loose, dead-point, and dyno, my climbing improved significantly. So did my confidence on run-out slabs. (I started trusting and moving on smears I wouldn't have otherwise.)

I was the opposite. I'm a lightweight so not a lot of body mass to carry around which comes in useful on overhangs! I was relying far too much on my arms though and because I'm a short ass, making those important final reaches when I was feeling pumped was just too much. It wasn't until I learnt that my maximum power, especially on overhangs, came from my feet. It wasn't easy for me to learn a whole new technique, in fact it was bloody difficult but I was failing anyway and so had nothing to lose. I can not rely on arm strength to keep me on the wall. My feet have to create most of the dynamic energy I need.

In reply to:

If you finish the route or boulder problem, it doesn't matter is you powered through it or not. Doesn't matter if you finessed your way through it either. Actually, it just doesn't matter how you climb as long as you are enjoying yourself.

It may seem silly or maybe obvious but a while back I started intentionally climbing open handed.... even on crimps almost all the time (90%). I did it to avoid injury from crimping but what I found was that It really taught me to use my lower body and core better ... really helped using momentum. Also, I think naturally you are forced to use your whole body to do a move instead of just muscling through. You may have to do this for while before it makes sense. I've always had good technique but this constant practice put me in the great technique area. My consistent flash level is much higher now than ever before.

It may seem silly or maybe obvious but a while back I started intentionally climbing open handed.... even on crimps almost all the time (90%). I did it to avoid injury from crimping but what I found was that It really taught me to use my lower body and core better ... really helped using momentum. Also, I think naturally you are forced to use your whole body to do a move instead of just muscling through. You may have to do this for while before it makes sense. I've always had good technique but this constant practice put me in the great technique area. My consistent flash level is much higher now than ever before.

IMO open palming on crimps is something people should incorporate into their climbing schedule, especially on high walls where they feel more exposed. When you are 30ft up on a flat face and only your feet can initiate moves because there is nothing you can do with your hands but palm them, then you know that upper body brute strength isn't going to get you through the next move without the dynamo in your legs. Think about how many times your feet/legs/thighs not only push you in the right direction but pull you too. Its your legs and lower body that are hugely assisting your upper body and saving it from overworking. I don't think a lot of people appreciate just how hard the lower body is working and how much maximum force is used from the feet during a climb. Instead they become almost dissociated with their lower half and fail to concentrate on what is going on beneath their arms. They don't see a leg pull that would get them out of a tricky spot and they don't understand how to apply the correct maximum force to a foot hold. Instead they fail the route and in frustration go back to the fingerboards and weights.

I've been bouldering for nearly 3 years on and off and I still have less experienced climbers(Like day 1) being able to muscle through problems I've been attempting for weeks. I'll be honest I'm not light but, I'm not over weight. So far I've been getting through problems simply through experience and being able to hold onto crimps. I was wondering at what grade does this stop and if I should just buff up rather than doing fingerboard? I can flash V3's at the standard grading at Brooklyn Boulders but, the grading at my University's local gym is much more harsh.

You don't know the physical background and even childhood they have/had, they may have put in years of hard work in other things that may have at-least low level climbing pass over.

I see a huge differance day to day in new climbers. Some are just good, others.. to be blunt are not. Alot of it also comes down to how active said climber was in childhood. The poeple who had or are into everything as a kid, climbing roof tops.. tree's.. jumping over fences etc tend to pick up skills that do go toward our definition of climbing. The generation coming through now (from my pov) have a much larger portion of children/young adults who do nothing.. play video games & text all day or w/e. It realy shows in their cog and coordination, or lack of.

Im going off on a rant so will cut it short ;p.

Technique and physical ability are together, its not some war were you pick a side. But, seems the advice and mentality of many climbers is one or the other.

If you have been climbing for 3 years, and by the sounds of it fighting for el'techniqo, maybe pay some attention to the physical aspect?. It's clearly working for those 1st day warriors. Imagine what you would achieve with your technique and their strength.

I've been bouldering for nearly 3 years on and off and I still have less experienced climbers(Like day 1) being able to muscle through problems I've been attempting for weeks. I'll be honest I'm not light but, I'm not over weight. So far I've been getting through problems simply through experience and being able to hold onto crimps. I was wondering at what grade does this stop and if I should just buff up rather than doing fingerboard? I can flash V3's at the standard grading at Brooklyn Boulders but, the grading at my University's local gym is much more harsh.

You don't know the physical background and even childhood they have/had, they may have put in years of hard work in other things that may have at-least low level climbing pass over.

I see a huge differance day to day in new climbers. Some are just good, others.. to be blunt are not. Alot of it also comes down to how active said climber was in childhood. The poeple who had or are into everything as a kid, climbing roof tops.. tree's.. jumping over fences etc tend to pick up skills that do go toward our definition of climbing. The generation coming through now (from my pov) have a much larger portion of children/young adults who do nothing.. play video games & text all day or w/e. It realy shows in their cog and coordination, or lack of.

Im going off on a rant so will cut it short ;p.

Technique and physical ability are together, its not some war were you pick a side. But, seems the advice and mentality of many climbers is one or the other.

If you have been climbing for 3 years, and by the sounds of it fighting for el'techniqo, maybe pay some attention to the physical aspect?. It's clearly working for those 1st day warriors. Imagine what you would achieve with your technique and their strength.

Agreed. Maybe you dont have enough strength. There is needed a modicum of strength to have any technique.

DemolitionRed seems to have na axe to grind with strong climbers for some reason. /shrug. Being strong helps, having technique helps - they all work together.

DemolitionRed seems to have na axe to grind with strong climbers for some reason. /shrug. Being strong helps, having technique helps - they all work together.

I don't have an axe to grind so much as frustration watching some of you guys hurt yourselves. I weigh just short of 100lbs and I am 5.5 tall. I'm skinny, Im female and I'm getting through those tough technical routes just fine. I have never used a hang board in my life and I have never lifted weights but as well as climbing, I spent my adolescence as a gymnast. Being supple and having a good understanding of my core body strength and my overall center of gravity is what allows me to climb with ease those same routes all you guys need to build muscle to do. Just saying !

DemolitionRed seems to have na axe to grind with strong climbers for some reason. /shrug. Being strong helps, having technique helps - they all work together.

I don't have an axe to grind so much as frustration watching some of you guys hurt yourselves. I weigh just short of 100lbs and I am 5.5 tall. I'm skinny, Im female and I'm getting through those tough technical routes just fine. I have never used a hang board in my life and I have never lifted weights but as well as climbing, I spent my adolescence as a gymnast. Being supple and having a good understanding of my core body strength and my overall center of gravity is what allows me to climb with ease those same routes all you guys need to build muscle to do. Just saying !

Fair enough. If you are a beginner climber 11 and under then yea girls usually use less muscle. The learning curve for girls is flatter since they usually realize they are not strong enough and rely on footwork and technique from the start. Someitmes being strong as a beginner can be a detriment.

If we are talking 12 and trying to break into the 13s a hangboard is a perfectly acceptable tool.

Fair enough. If you are a beginner climber 11 and under then yea girls usually use less muscle. The learning curve for girls is flatter since they usually realize they are not strong enough and rely on footwork and technique from the start. Someitmes being strong as a beginner can be a detriment.

If we are talking 12 and trying to break into the 13s a hangboard is a perfectly acceptable tool.

What grades are you talking?

All grades are completely subjective, so I only ever use grades as a guide and not as point scorer! I'm a big wall and multi pitch climber and only use the gyms bouldering room to go through some of the highly technical and demanding moves sometimes asked of me when I'm a couple of thousand feet up. Indoor bouldering allows me to practice those demanding pumpy moves. roofs and overhangs comprising of delicate foot holds, pinchers, heel hooks and slippery slopers will absolutely insist that I have great balance (know how to flag myself) good mind skills absolute determination and strength.

Power to weight ratio is very important. I don't dispute that top climbers tend to have low body fat levels and good strength. They also have a very high level of fitness, excellent spotting skills, have a competitive and daring edge and are incredibly supple. Whilst I may be skinny, I'm pure muscle. That though, doesn't mean I'm going to beat you in an arm wrestling competition. I may however, fly past you on the wall, because although you may be stronger than me, I am probably more agile than you. I gained my strength through climbing. I gained my agility through climbing. I love watching people boulder because they give other climbers the edge when it comes to intermediate movements. The climbs are short, fast and pumpy but strength on its own is pretty useless if you want to progress beyond the most basic of grades.

Fair enough. If you are a beginner climber 11 and under then yea girls usually use less muscle. The learning curve for girls is flatter since they usually realize they are not strong enough and rely on footwork and technique from the start. Someitmes being strong as a beginner can be a detriment.

If we are talking 12 and trying to break into the 13s a hangboard is a perfectly acceptable tool.

What grades are you talking?

All grades are completely subjective, so I only ever use grades as a guide and not as point scorer! I'm a big wall and multi pitch climber and only use the gyms bouldering room to go through some of the highly technical and demanding moves sometimes asked of me when I'm a couple of thousand feet up. Indoor bouldering allows me to practice those demanding pumpy moves. roofs and overhangs comprising of delicate foot holds, pinchers, heel hooks and slippery slopers will absolutely insist that I have great balance (know how to flag myself) good mind skills absolute determination and strength.

Power to weight ratio is very important. I don't dispute that top climbers tend to have low body fat levels and good strength. They also have a very high level of fitness, excellent spotting skills, have a competitive and daring edge and are incredibly supple. Whilst I may be skinny, I'm pure muscle. That though, doesn't mean I'm going to beat you in an arm wrestling competition. I may however, fly past you on the wall, because although you may be stronger than me, I am probably more agile than you. I gained my strength through climbing. I gained my agility through climbing. I love watching people boulder because they give other climbers the edge when it comes to intermediate movements. The climbs are short, fast and pumpy but strength on its own is pretty useless if you want to progress beyond the most basic of grades.

Fair enough. If you are a beginner climber 11 and under then yea girls usually use less muscle. The learning curve for girls is flatter since they usually realize they are not strong enough and rely on footwork and technique from the start. Someitmes being strong as a beginner can be a detriment.

If we are talking 12 and trying to break into the 13s a hangboard is a perfectly acceptable tool.

What grades are you talking?

I love watching people boulder because they give other climbers the edge when it comes to intermediate movements. The climbs are short, fast and pumpy but strength on its own is pretty useless if you want to progress beyond the most basic of grades.

Just as technique on its own is pretty useless to attaining anything higher than basic grades...it takes both.

DemolitionRed seems to have na axe to grind with strong climbers for some reason. /shrug. Being strong helps, having technique helps - they all work together.

I don't have an axe to grind so much as frustration watching some of you guys hurt yourselves. I weigh just short of 100lbs and I am 5.5 tall. I'm skinny, Im female and I'm getting through those tough technical routes just fine. I have never used a hang board in my life and I have never lifted weights but as well as climbing, I spent my adolescence as a gymnast. Being supple and having a good understanding of my core body strength and my overall center of gravity is what allows me to climb with ease those same routes all you guys need to build muscle to do. Just saying !

Strength is all about strength/weight. At 100 pounds with a gymnast background, your strength to weight ratio is likely badass and superior to the males you are criticizing for trying to get an equivalent strength to weight ratio.

Strength is all about strength/weight. At 100 pounds with a gymnast background, your strength to weight ratio is likely badass and superior to the males you are criticizing for trying to get an equivalent strength to weight ratio.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I mean, you made a good point. A point I would like to make though is, I only have the muscle I need and that's because I don't use muscle power to do anything other than climb. Gymnastics made me supple which helps but if I had continued to do gymnastics it would of hindered my climbing because of the unwanted muscle development. I think what I'm trying to say, though I have done it in this huge round about way is, the best thing to improve climbing is climbing and spending time around other climbers who are good. Time and time again I hear guys who are fretting about their performance in the gym and rushing off to pump some iron. Going to a gym and doing resistance exercises with weights, in my opinion only trains the wrong muscles. It just adds weight onto the body that the body will probably never use for climbing.

Demo im very sorry to do this but your (what seems sexest comments) gets to me. Just becuase i am male, taller and weigh more than you.. do not be under some illsuion that i would not blow you out of the water in every aspect of technique.

You need to drop this bs attitude that males are gorrilerz and femlaes have the gift of the gods when it comes to movement. The steroe type may hold some water for new climbers (assuming those males had physical background) but certainly not for mid to long turm climbers.

The real issue is that the majority of climbers above newbs show no interest in building strength. And thats down to the misconception that all males hav eno technique... and women don't need strength (becuase technique is all you need!!).

the advice is allwyas to train technique until your at a level to train strength. Nobody realy tells you when that level should be.. so allot of climbers never train it becuase they dont know they can, with huge benifit.

I don't have an axe to grind so much as frustration watching some of you guys hurt yourselves. I weigh just short of 100lbs and I am 5.5 tall. I'm skinny, Im female and I'm getting through those tough technical routes just fine. I have never used a hang board in my life and I have never lifted weights but as well as climbing, I spent my adolescence as a gymnast. Being supple and having a good understanding of my core body strength and my overall center of gravity is what allows me to climb with ease those same routes all you guys need to build muscle to do. Just saying !

Why are you so concerned about what or how other people are climbing.

Last I checked, Gymnastics requires quite a lot of hanging and pulling. More or less the same process as using a hang-board.

Working through those technical routes just fine, how about those routes that require a big dyno halfway through. For me, climbing is about being well rounded. I climb fairly constantly whether I am on slabs or overhangs, crack or face.

In reply to:

All grades are completely subjective, so I only ever use grades as a guide and not as point scorer!

Yes, grades are subjective, and no one here recommended you use them as a scorecard.(That's another climbing website) Even with that in mind, you have to admit, the amount of technique or power needed to complete a 5.5 versus a 5.12 are significantly different.

In reply to:

I'm a big wall and multi pitch climber and only use the gyms bouldering room to go through some of the highly technical and demanding moves sometimes asked of me when I'm a couple of thousand feet up.

If you're only bouldering in your gym, youíre missing out for the style of climbing you do.

While hard bouldering move will definitely help you develop power and technic, running laps on top-ropes and doing multiple lead till muscle failure would be useful for you multi-pitch climbing.

What do you consider a big-wall?

For me big walls take the average party, climbing at regular speed, at least two days to complete. Just want to make sure we are referring to the same terminology.

Indoor bouldering allows me to practice those demanding pumpy moves. roofs and overhangs comprising of delicate foot holds, pinchers, heel hooks and slippery slopers will absolutely insist that I have great balance (know how to flag myself) good mind skills absolute determination and strength.

Where do you climb? Just curious. I also think there is a huge deference between doing an demanding and hard move inside the local gymís bouldering cave and 30 feet above your last nut on pitch eight. (Physically and mentally)

In reply to:

Power to weight ratio is very important. I don't dispute that top climbers tend to have low body fat levels and good strength. They also have a very high level of fitness, excellent spotting skills, have a competitive and daring edge and are incredibly supple.

Spotting skill? What does that have to do with anything?

Climbing fitness: Endurance and Power. They also have technique. Hard to do technical move of one finger pockets if you're not strong enough.

In reply to:

Whilst I may be skinny, I'm pure muscle. That though, doesn't mean I'm going to beat you in an arm wrestling competition. I may however, fly past you on the wall, because although you may be stronger than me, I am probably more agile than you. I gained my strength through climbing. I gained my agility through climbing.

Skinny, pure muscle, good shape, and flawless technique. Share a video or some photos.

Making a lot of assumption about your ability and those around you. Iím not a fast climber, I donít have high endurance. Most pitches Iíve done in a day 32. Linking several routes with jogs in between at Cathedral in New Hampshire. I've linked RA to Crest Jewel, but don't consider that very long.

I tried to do the Regular Route on Half Dome in a day a long time ago, I failed with a time of 26 hours. (Car to summit)

With that said, I did Snake Dike car to summit in just over 5 hours. In this case, grade, constancy of climbing, and climbing skills all play a factor.

Grades for me are not a scorecard either, but the harder the grade, the slower I climb.

In reply to:

I love watching people boulder because they give other climbers the edge when it comes to intermediate movements. The climbs are short, fast and pumpy but strength on its own is pretty useless if you want to progress beyond the most basic of grades.

Personally, I prefer to boulder or climb than to watch. Seems to help my climbing more.

Again, this technique versus muscle has been around a long time. Iím a technique climber, which help me with endurance. I am not powerful by any means. My view, you can have all the technique in the world, and loads of endurance to cling to a hold forever, but if you donít have the power to do the next move, youíre not going any higher.

Iíve also been told that more power means you need less endurance because you wonít get as pumped doing the individual moves. (Interesting for sure)

My technique is strong, my endurance is fine, and my weakness is definitely power. My weakness is what I am currently working on improving, without depriving the other two.

Improving at climbing isn't hard. Challenge yourself every-time you climb. Push you limit every-time you climb. Get on routes are are to difficult to finish first try. The more you push your limit, the more you advance it. Sounds easy, but what I see at both the gym and the grags is a few climbers pushing themselves consistently, and many more staying well inside their physical (and mental) comfort zone.

Strength is all about strength/weight. At 100 pounds with a gymnast background, your strength to weight ratio is likely badass and superior to the males you are criticizing for trying to get an equivalent strength to weight ratio.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I mean, you made a good point. A point I would like to make though is, I only have the muscle I need and that's because I don't use muscle power to do anything other than climb. Gymnastics made me supple which helps but if I had continued to do gymnastics it would of hindered my climbing because of the unwanted muscle development. I think what I'm trying to say, though I have done it in this huge round about way is, the best thing to improve climbing is climbing and spending time around other climbers who are good. Time and time again I hear guys who are fretting about their performance in the gym and rushing off to pump some iron. Going to a gym and doing resistance exercises with weights, in my opinion only trains the wrong muscles. It just adds weight onto the body that the body will probably never use for climbing.

I could not agree more.

In reply to:

If you could watch everyone is this thread climb before you listened to them, the following coversations would be much different.

Could not agree more also.

For my part, I am a male, I weigh around 110 pounds and am 5 foot 8.

Needless to say, at that weight, it's just skin and bones, and it's very hard for me to get muscular mass. I try to compensate by developing good technique, but honestly it is not enough and I'd like to have some more strength.

What I've discovered is that good technique can lead you far in climbing, but there comes a point where strength is necessary on harder problems or routes.

The opposite is true also : in the beginning, a climber with high strength can get quite far, but then again, at some point, technique will become essential.

When looking at those huge muscular dudes trying to solve a boulder problem with poor technique, you see that the "extra" weight they carry because of their muscles can really play against them, especially on steep walls and overhangs.

Gravity plays an important role, and the heavier you are, the more force it exerts on your body to drag it down. Thus, in my opinion, you need to have only the proper muscles developed, but not EVERY single muscle of your body (which MIGHT cause one to be heavier than necessary and be dragged down by gravity).

In other words, strategic muscle development and technique are key. If you climb long routes, focus on endurance. If you do boulder problems, focus on strength, but all in all try to be only developing the necessary muscles.

technique will sometimes help you depending on the situation. strength will always help you.

people who use equal portions technique and strength max out around v6..v7. at this point, technique will start holding you back. more problems will have smaller holds, bigger moves and less feet. there simply isn't an opportunity to use technique. the strength based climbers will see it as every other problem and muscle through it. suppose technique turns a v5 into a v2. you only need a v2 worth of strength and you're done. on a v6 where no technique is available, it's now 4 vgrades higher than the strength requirement of the v5. the reason that the v6 seems to be miles away from the v5 is exactly that - it is for the technique based climbers. the strength based climbers will never build giant gaps. without technique some problems will get harder. if without technique it's harder, learn the beta for this particular problem and do it. technique can be trained instantly and is a subcategory of beta. on a sufficiently odd beta, everyone is equal since even the best technique users will have trained exactly as much as a strength based climber: none.

powering through climbs can eventually make body parts fail, resulting in a setback that may become insurmountable. even still, i would gladly trade a vgrade worth of technique for a vgrade worth of strength.

technique will sometimes help you depending on the situation. strength will always help you.

Let's go do some old school boulder problems together and see what you think then.

In reply to:

people who use equal portions technique and strength max out around v6..v7. at this point, technique will start holding you back.

Technique will never hold you back, nor will being stronger. Actually, climbing harder routes is about having more technique and more strength too.

In reply to:

more problems will have smaller holds, bigger moves and less feet. there simply isn't an opportunity to use technique. the strength based climbers will see it as every other problem and muscle through it.

The smaller the holds, the more technique I use, based on what I've seen of high end climbers, I would say the same is true for them too.

Don't care how strong you are, if you don't know how to move, you can't move. Try powering your way through the Morgue at Heuco Tanks. Strenght and technique both require, and only V4 or V5, can't remember now.

In reply to:

suppose technique turns a v5 into a v2. you only need a v2 worth of strength and you're done. on a v6 where no technique is available, it's now 4 vgrades higher than the strength requirement of the v5. the reason that the v6 seems to be miles away from the v5 is exactly that - it is for the technique based climbers. the strength based climbers will never build giant gaps. without technique some problems will get harder.

You are showing your ignorance of climbing grades. Just because you have strength or technique doesn't change the grade from one climber to the next. One person V4 isn't another V11 anymore that one climber's 5.12 is an others 5.8.

In reply to:

if without technique it's harder, learn the beta for this particular problem and do it. technique can be trained instantly and is a subcategory of beta.

You are confusing technique with sequence. While the two are weave together, they are very separate things. Reading moves in a sequence is a mental skill, having the technique to execute those move is a motor skill, having the power/endurance to pull the moves is a physical skill.

All three are important, especially if you want to climb/boulder without other people giving you beta. In my book, beta is having someone else solve the puzzle for you.

In reply to:

on a sufficiently odd beta, everyone is equal since even the best technique users will have trained exactly as much as a strength based climber: none.

If the sequence require you to hold all your weight on a single one finger pocket in the middle of a roof, you need the strength to do the move, regardless of knowing how it's done or not. If you're not strong enough, you can't pull the move.

If the problem require a high step onto a friction hold and you don't know how to smear, you won't be able to climb the problem regardless of how strong you are.powering through climbs can eventually make body parts fail, resulting in a setback that may become insurmountable. even still, i would gladly trade a vgrade worth of technique for a vgrade worth of strength. I have no clue what you are saying.

Personally, I rather know that my strength, technique, and climbing style will allow me to climb another 30+ years instead of having to quit because my body is so F#@$ed up.

What's the point of being strong if you can't move properly using good technique? From a bouldering angle you might still solve the boulder prolem. But on long routes you'll waste energy by moving unefficienty.

What's the point of having technique if you don't have the power to do the required moved moves? You also most likely won't be able to complete a route in this case.

Strength and technique are both essential and of equal importance in my opinion.

sports in general does not have a well elucidated foundation - most of sports medicine was recently proved wrong by scientific literature (like RICE). climbing, since it adopts such a wide range of skills, even more so. i am genuinely interested in your answers.

what are old school boulder problems?

by strength, i mean both the force to hold and move. not simply to hold. that would be hilarious though, one without the other. incidentally, my definition of technique is efficient weighting. this is body positioning that strains strong muscles more and weak muscles less. this usually means weighting the feet more than the hands.

In reply to:

Just because you have strength or technique doesn't change the grade from one climber to the next. One person V4 isn't another V11 anymore that one climber's 5.12 is an others 5.8.

i believe you can make any problem arbitrarily hard by not using what's given. so yes, a v0 can be a sharma v16 or higher. for example - don't use any hand holds or feet. form a vacuum with your hands to hold on to oiled glass, no feet and campus instead of using the ladder next to the oiled glass wall. this i believe illustrates arbitrarily high difficulty by skipping what's given. what's given may not always be as clear as an aluminum ladder propped up against a glass wall. i was completely unable to understand the last sentence, can you clarify? if you're saying "One person's v4 isn't another's v11 anymore, that one climber's 5.12 is another's 5.8", does that mean all v4's are regulated such that nobody would consider them harder regardless of circumstance? or are you saying this is not the case since one climber's 5.12 is another climber's 5.8 in perceived rating or applied effort? i realize the minutia can be somewhat frustrating to master for tier 5 difficulty languages (like english).

here i admit i am thoroughly confused, sorry. technique is a motor skill and power is a physical skill. therefore technique must necessarily be a subcategory of physical, surely? if it's a methodology, it's necessarily mental and a subcategory of reading, right? if it's accuracy/dexterity it's a subcategory of physical. is the subcategory necessary? it seems that if it has no practical deployment it may be unnecessary. i have a pro weight lifter friend who climbs and he only distinguishes between mental and physical. he has even said, sometimes the muscles have plenty of strength, but the brain is unable to send enough messages to get the muscle going, so mental is the limiting factor of raw strength.

i have no interest in climbing for 30+ years though i must say congratulations if you are indeed able to manage that. this is not sarcasm, but honest respect. i'd like to leave with a bang. i feel this is important to mention to other beginners. i am 31 years old. if i don't get to where i want to be in a few years, it won't happen.

In reply to:

If the sequence require you to hold all your weight on a single one finger pocket in the middle of a roof, you need the strength to do the move, regardless of knowing how it's done or not. If you're not strong enough, you can't pull the move.

my argument was that odd betas where you can't fidget with the problem, like exactly you described, strength would help and technique not so much. i think we fundamentally have the same opinion, i just failed the formal definition. sorry.

however, i will say that flexibility can earn you a full vgrade for a few weeks worth of stretching in certain conditions, as a case against myself. furthermore, arguing against me, mike says american climbers are small holds and big moves. european climbers are directional hold balance moves. both get shut down on the others' problems. i trained under mike who was the main competition setter for america and did a lot of setting in europe (still is and is the instructor for abs setter certification). i figure this is style difference, but if style difference is fundamentally defined as a technique, i'm not sure.